Retrieve test results for a specific TestRail test ID. Filter by status or defect and control pagination to view relevant outcomes.
Retrieves test results for a specific test / 特定のテストのテスト結果を取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | The number of results to return per page | |
| offset | No | The offset to start returning results | |
| testId | Yes | TestRail Test ID | |
| statusId | No | Filter by status IDs (comma-separated) | |
| defectsFilter | No | Filter by defect ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states retrieval, omitting safety (read-only), authentication needs, or rate limits. Mutation status is unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences (English and Japanese) are concise and front-load the purpose, though the Japanese duplication adds slight redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description lacks details on pagination (limit, offset) and filtering (statusId, defectsFilter). For a retrieval tool with 5 parameters, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so description adds no extra meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'test results for a specific test'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getResultsForCase or getResultsForRun, which have similar purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of pagination or filtering context, leaving the agent to infer usage from parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.